US President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order ( EO ) on January 20, 2025, which ended birthright citizenship for children born to non-citizen parents. As a result of the analysis by TOI, lakhs of Indians who have been waiting for an employment-linked green card will be affected going forward as a child born in a family ( thirty days from the date of the EO ) where the mother is legally present but temporarily ( for example, as a visitor or on a non-immigrant visa, such as a dependent visa like an H-4 or even a work visa ), and the’father’ is not a green card holder Read more about: Over 1 million Indians in the green card lane were affected by the restriction of citizen yet for constitutional immigrants.
City courts prevented the EO from being implemented.
Almost 22 states and a number of civil rights organizations filed claims challenging the EO’s validity in response. The petition had challenged the 14th Amendment’s historic understanding, which grants citizenship to all people born on US soil irrespective of their parents ‘ immigration status, in a number of district courts nationwide. In the 1989 decision in the Wong Kim Ark event, the US Supreme Court had ruled that children who were born in America to foreigners were constitutional people. Trump’s professional purchase makes it clear that the 14th Amendment has never been interpreted as granting membership to anyone born in the US. It has always forbids persons who were born in the US but are not” subject to the jurisdiction thereof” from receiving heritage membership. In other words, for the baby to become a citizen of the United States, one of the parents must be a US citizen or owner of a green cards.
Hearing for the Supreme Court will take place on May 15.
On May 15, 2025, the US Supreme Court will hear arguments regarding the constitutionality of the Eu and the district court’s authority to grant global rulings. FWD. In its plan short, US, a nonpartisan political organization, points out that the Trump administration doesn’t actually defend its extreme legal theory in the Supreme Court—likely because it knows the argument will fall apart, but rather concentrates on the legality of global injunctions. In recent years, these injunctions have been at the forefront of political controversy across a range of coverage topics. These prohibitions are necessary, according to advocates, to protect the plaintiffs from all injury, as well as from harm to those who are not specifically named in the cases, particularly those that involve the national Constitution. According to reviewers, these injunctions fraudulently encircle the Executive Branch and go beyond the proper authority of district court judges. It further states that while it is perfectly acceptable for the Supreme Court to act on the constitutional principles governing the issuance of global injunctions, restricting the relief in this case may cause racial unrest and facilitate common infringement of fundamental constitutional rights.
